DOJ IG Found No Bias As The Evidence Was Withheld From Him

Two new developments in the ongoing saga of FBI/DoJ Malfeasance/corruption. First, we discovered Friday (06 July 2018) that Agent Strzok of the FBI failed his annual CI polygraph examination way back in January of 2016. The normal repercussions of an FBI Agent, and especially a Supervisory Agent in the Counter Intelligence division of the FBI would be a suspension of security clearances and re-assignment while the questions resulting in the failed polygraph are investigated. Clearly those normal repercussions did not obtain.

Validating Paul Sperry’s tweet. Yes, FBI Agent Peter Strzok failed his polygraph and his supervisors were notified on January 16th, 2016, his results were “out of scope“. Meaning he failed his polygraph test. Yet he was never removed from any responsibilities; and against dept policy, he did not have his clearance revoked until he could clear.

This was discussed during the Rosenstein testimony and overlooked by most.

This latest revelation of the FBI/DoJ failing to follow their own internal regulations comes hard on the heels of an even more significant revelation. You may have notices some new text messages and memorandi have come to the attention of Congress. Why, a resonable observer of this ongoing CF might ask, were these not included in the IG’s report? Easy, they were withheld by the FBI/DoJ from their own Inspector General in contravention of Federal Law.

Well, this is interesting. The substance of the latest information is better read by reviewing the presentation of John Solomon [SEE HERE].

The dynamic that catches my interest is how some unknown and unnamed officials inside the FBI apparently kept memos and emails between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok hidden while Inspector General Michael Horowitz was conducting his prior investigation into their conduct during the Clinton email investigation:

[…] Memos the FBI is now producing to the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general and multiple Senate and House committees offer what sources involved in the production, review or investigation describe to me as “damning” or “troubling” evidence.

Yeah. You could say that, if you have a particular penchant for understatement that might make a Laconian sound verbose.

Multiple reviews of whether FBI agents’ political bias affected the Russia-Trump collusion case remain in their infancy, but investigators already have unearthed troubling internal communications long withheld from public view.

…

They show Strzok and his counterintelligence team rushing in the fall of 2016 to find “derogatory” information from informants or a “pretext” to accelerate the probe and get a surveillance warrant on figures tied to the future president.

One of those figures was Carter Page, an academic and an energy consultant from New York; he was briefly a volunteer foreign policy adviser for the GOP nominee’s campaign and visited Moscow the summer before the election.

The memos show Strzok, Lisa Page and others in counterintelligence monitored news articles in September 2016 that quoted a law enforcement source as saying the FBI was investigating Carter Page’s travel to Moscow.

The FBI team pounced on what it saw as an opportunity as soon as Page wrote a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey complaining about the “completely false” leak.

“At a minimum, the letter provides us a pretext to interview,” Strzok wrote to Lisa Page on Sept. 26, 2016.

Note, not evidence of any crime having been committed. A pretext useful towards opening a CI investigation. Which is indeed what happened within the course of the next few weeks. This is the smoking gun of bias that IG Horrowitz was not allowed to see.